So every single potential commit needs to pass a 1 day lazy consensus vote
before it can be pushed. This is the issue I have with the current wording.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Bill Havanki <bhava...@clouderagovt.com>wrote:
> First, +1 vote
>
> As part of getting us a (literally) passable first set of bylaws as a
> foundation, at one point I "refactored" the commit and review details out
> to an as-yet-to-be-written standard. So, what is in the bylaws should be
> interpreted as permissive.
>
> My interpretations: A "code change" can certainly be a commit - "a change
> made to a codebase of a project". Lazy approval is based on that commit.
> The minimum voting period (here and for release plan) applies to both vote
> phases separately, so *n* days for lazy approval, *n* days for consensus
> if needed. (I imagine lazy approval has some period since getting a veto
> one month later shouldn't be possible, for example; but if that doesn't
> make sense, never mind. :) )
>
> I have all sorts of ideas about the commit and review details, and I bet
> others do too, which is why I like having that split off from getting some
> version 1 bylaws in place. As the policies evolve, we still have the option
> to modify the bylaws as needed.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:40 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> The only two places we have a lazy falling back to another type of vote is
>> code change and release plan. For release plan, I interpret the minimum
>> length to apply to either type of vote. However, you're stating that this
>> is not the case for a code change. So there is ambiguity about minimum
>> length applying to lazy approvals that needs to be cleared up here.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rina...@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > The only time there is more than one type of approval (not vote)
>> required
>> > is when the first one is lazy consensus, which doesn't actually require
>> a
>> > vote. Maybe we just need some elaboration on how to CTR which is
>> > referenced from this doc ("Please refer to the Accumulo commit and
>> review
>> > standard for details")?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 1:17 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> If that is the case, then I think we should provide distinction about
>> the
>> >> time lengths between the various types of votes, for the cases where
>> there
>> >> are multiple possible votes involved.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Billie Rinaldi <
>> billie.rina...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> The way I'm reading actions, all code changes must be presented at
>> least
>> >>>> one day before they can be committed. Is that intended this way?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I wasn't reading it that way. Code change is lazy approval, and "An
>> >>> action with lazy approval is implicitly allowed unless a -1 vote is
>> >>> received." Not requiring a vote supersedes the minimum vote length.
>> In
>> >>> the event of falling back to consensus approval for code change, the
>> >>> minimum vote length is 1 day.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Billie Rinaldi <bil...@apache.org>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Hey everyone! We only have 3 more days to vote on Accumulo's
>> bylaws
>> >>>> ...
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Bill Havanki <
>> >>>> bhava...@clouderagovt.com
>> >>>> > >wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > > Please vote on the proposed bylaws, as available at
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > *
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/accumulo/site/trunk/content/bylaws.mdtext?revision=1582476&view=markup
>> >>>> > > <
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/accumulo/site/trunk/content/bylaws.mdtext?revision=1582476&view=markup
>> >>>> > > >*
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > A nicer-to-read version is available at
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > This vote will be open for 7 days, until 4 April 2014 14:00 UTC.
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the
>> >>>> document
>> >>>> > > body
>> >>>> > > will be replaced with "This is version 1 of the bylaws," and the
>> >>>> > statement
>> >>>> > > defining the document as a draft will be stricken. Additionally,
>> a
>> >>>> link
>> >>>> > to
>> >>>> > > the document will be added to the navigation menu.
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> > more
>> >>>> > > +1
>> >>>> > > than -1's.
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaws and accept them for
>> the
>> >>>> > > Apache Accumulo
>> >>>> > > project."
>> >>>> > > [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these proposed
>> >>>> bylaws, but
>> >>>> > > accept them for the Apache Accumulo project."
>> >>>> > > [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaws and do not
>> >>>> accept
>> >>>> > them
>> >>>> > > for
>> >>>> > > the Apache Accumulo project because..."
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > Thank you.
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> > > --
>> >>>> > > // Bill Havanki
>> >>>> > > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
>> >>>> > > // 443.686.9283
>> >>>> > >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>
